Forgetting faces over a week: investigating self-reported face recognition ability and personality

Investigating people's metacognitive insight into their own face abilities

Within the domain of face processing, researchers have been interested in quantifying the relationship between objective (i.e., performance on laboratory tests of recognition and matching) and subjective measures of ability (typically, self-report questionnaires). Put simply, do people show high levels of metacognitive insight into their own abilities with faces? Although several studies have suggested that the association between these two types of measures may only be moderate, there remain several important issues that require consideration before this question can be sensibly investigated. First, specificity is needed regarding both objective and subjective measurements because both tend to span a wide range of potentially separable abilities. Second, experimental tasks appear to focus on different contexts to those tapped in self-report questionnaire items. Third, recent issues with statistical approaches and visualisation can result in numerical artefacts and misinterpretations. Finally, the sizes of population-level insights suggested by recent work provide only limited information regarding individuals within these populations, and so researchers aiming to identify people at the extremes of ability must be careful when drawing conclusions. Taken together, we argue that more attention to these issues is needed when attempting to investigate metacognitive insight within this domain.

How quickly do we learn new faces in everyday life? Neurophysiological evidence for face identity learning after a brief real-life encounter

Faces learnt in a single experimental session elicit a familiarity effect in event-related brain potentials (ERPs), with more negative amplitudes for newly learnt relative to unfamiliar faces in the N250 component. However, no ERP study has examined face learning following a brief real-life encounter, and it is not clear how long it takes to learn new faces in such ecologically more valid conditions. To investigate these questions, the present study examined whether robust image-independent representations, as reflected in the N250 familiarity effect, could be established after a brief unconstrained social interaction by analysing the ERPs elicited by highly variable images of the newly learnt identity and an unfamiliar person. Significant N250 familiarity effects were observed after a 30-min (Experiment 1) and a 10-min (Experiment 2) encounter, and a trend was observed after 5 min of learning (Experiment 3), demonstrating that 5-10 min of exposure were sufficient for the initial establishment of image-independent representations. Additionally, the magnitude of the effects reported after 10 and 30 min was comparable suggesting that the first 10 min of a social encounter might be crucial, with extra 20 min from the same encounter not adding further benefit for the initial formation of robust face representations.

Face matching and metacognition: investigating individual differences and a training intervention

Background

Although researchers have begun to consider metacognitive insight during face matching, little is known about the underlying mechanism. Here, I investigated whether objective ability, as well as self-assessed ability, were able to predict metacognitive performance, that is, the ability to differentiate correct and incorrect responses in terms of confidence. In addition, I considered whether a training intervention resulted in improvements to both face matching performance and metacognitive insight.

Methods

In this experiment (N = 220), participants completed a face matching task, with either a diagnostic feature training course or a control course presented at the halfway point. In addition, a second face matching task, as well as a self-report questionnaire regarding ability, were completed to provide measures of objective and self-assessed ability respectively.

Results

Higher self-assessed ability with faces, as well as higher objective ability with face matching, predicted better metacognitive performance, i.e., greater confidence in correct, in comparison with incorrect, responses. This pattern of results was evident both when objective ability was measured through performance on the same task used to measure metacognitive insight and when a different task was used. Finally, the training intervention failed to produce improvements in face matching performance and showed no evidence of altering metacognitive ability.

Discussion

The current work begins to address the mechanism underlying individual differences in metacognitive insight during face matching. Although support was provided for a competence-based account, where better face matchers showed greater performance on the task and were more successful in monitoring their performance, further work might focus on decoupling task performance and competence in order to more conclusively explain why some people are more insightful than others.

Metacognition during unfamiliar face matching

Kruger and Dunning (1999) described a metacognitive bias in which insight into performance is linked to competence: poorer performers are less aware of their mistakes than better performers. Competence-based insight has been argued to apply generally across task domains, including a recent report investigating social cognition using a variety of face-matching tasks. Problematically, serious statistical and methodological criticisms have been directed against the traditional method of analysis used by researchers in this field. Here, we further illustrate these issues and investigate new sources of insight within unfamiliar face matching. Over two experiments (total N = 1077), where Experiment 2 was a preregistered replication of the key findings from Experiment 1, we found that insight into performance was multi-faceted. Participants demonstrated insight which was not based on competence, in the form of accurate updating of estimated performance. We also found evidence of insight which was based on competence: the difference in confidence on correct versus incorrect trials increased with competence. By providing ways that we can move beyond problematic, traditional approaches, we have begun to reveal a more realistic story regarding the nature of insight into face perception.